AETNA HEALTH: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in N.J. Court----------------------------------------------------------Aetna Health Inc. PA, Corp. is facing a lawsuit filed July 30, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Named plaintiff Michelle Cooper purports to represent a class of members in Aetna's health plans who have utilized the services of providers who do not participate in the company's provider network.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, Aetna's practices in connection with the payment of claims for services provided to its members by providers who do not participate in the company's provider network violate the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Aetna believes this lawsuit is without merit and will defend this action vigorously. Reimbursement of non-participating providers is a complex issue, and Aetna strives to implement policies that are in the best interests of its members and employers who purchase benefits plans.

The suit is “Cooper v. Aetna Health Inc. PA, Corp. et al, Case No. 2:07-cv-03541-FSH-PS” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Faith S. Hochberg, with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES: Settles Abuse Lawsuits for $660M-------------------------------------------------------------Michael Hennigan, the lead lawyer representing the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Ray Boucher, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs announces an agreement in principle to settle the remaining 508 claims of clergy abuse filed against the Archdiocese.

The proposed settlement would total approximately $660 million in a combination of money from the Archdiocese, its insurance carriers and several religious orders together with guarantees of the outcome of future litigation.

The Archdiocese will pay $250 million of the total cash, and guarantee future litigation against non-settling defendants.Ray Boucher stated, “This historic settlement should bring closure and healing to the hundreds of victims who have been waiting more than five years for this moment.

A total of 12 insurers are contributing more than $200 million towards the settlement of the class action, according to Post Magazine (U.K.). It is believed to be the biggest clergy-abuse settlement in history, according to the report.

The group of 12 insurance companies includes Allianz SE, Chubb and Munich Re, which will pay $227 million. The insurers will pay by Dec. 1, Mr. Boucher said, according to Bloomberg News.

ARKANSAS: Rockport Sued Over Alleged Speed Trap Law Violations-------------------------------------------------------------- A Rockport man is suing city officials for alleged violation of the Arkansas Speed Trap law, 12-8-401, Meag Hunt of Malvern Daily Record reports.

Curtis Echols filed the suit against Rockport city, Alan LeVar, City Court Judge of Rockport, and the mayor, Darrell Hughes on July 19. His attorney, George D. Ellis, stated Echols is suing as an individual taxpayer and as a representative of taxpayers who have been fined for traffic offenses.

Mr. Echols claims the city excessively generates more than 30 percent of the city's revenue through fines and costs from traffic offenses and that more than half the tickets written for speeding in Rockport are for violations under 10 miles over the speed limit.

He calls Judge LeVar’s court a speed trap and claims he and the people he represents have been regularly harassed by the local police who he said are writing tickets that the illegally operated courts declare as violations.

Mayor Huges is in charge of the policy supervising budgets of cities which derive revenue from police and district courts.

Mr. Echols is asking that the court awards damages to him and his class for attorney's fees paid in the alleged illegal trials, lost wages due to having to appear in court, time spent incarcerated and other compensatory damages associated with these incidents. He has estimated the total of those damages at $5,000,000.

Mr. Echols also asks punitive damages against Judge LeVar, Mr. Hughes and Rockport, and a trial by jury under Judge Chris Williams.

The suit was filed by Gisselle Ruiz, who said the club refused to refund the balance of her membership fee when she canceled a 36-month contract with Holiday Universal, a subsidiary of Bally Total. She claimed the terms of the contract, including a built-in financing plan, violated the Massachusetts Health Club Services Contracts Act, which prohibits the required financing of a health-club contract for more than one month beyond the contract’s expiration.

The court ruled Bally’s health-club contracts do not violate Massachusetts consumer protection law because it never forced customers to sign up for the financing it offered.

BELO CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Part of Shareholder Lawsuit -----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas partially granted defendants’ motions to dismiss a lawsuit filed against Belo Corp. by shareholders.

On Aug. 23, 2004, Aug. 26, 2004 and Oct. 5, 2004, respectively, three related lawsuits were filed by purported shareholders of the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company, Robert W. Decherd and Barry Peckham.

The complaint arise out of the circulation overstatement at The Dallas Morning News announced by the Company in 2004. It alleges that the overstatement artificially inflated Belo’s financial results and thereby injured investors.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a purported class of shareholders who purchased Belo common stock between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On October 18, 2004, the court ordered the consolidation of all cases arising out of the same facts and presenting the same claims, and on February 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated complaint adding as defendants:

On May 18, 2007, the court partially granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint to the extent it dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint as to defendants John L. Sander, Dunia A. Shive and Dennis A. Williamson.

The motions to dismiss were denied as to the other defendants.

No class or classes have been certified and no amount of damages has been specified. The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Belo Corp., a Delaware corporation, began as a Texas newspaper company in 1842 and today is one of the nation’s largest media companies with a diversified group of market-leading television broadcasting, newspaper publishing, cable news and interactive media operations.

A Fortune 1000 company with approximately $1.6 billion in revenues for the year ended December 31, 2006, Belo operates news and information franchises in some of America’s most dynamic markets and regions.

The Company owns 20 television stations (six in the top 15 U.S. markets) that reach 14 percent of U.S. television households, and manages one television station through a local marketing agreement.

In addition, Belo owns two regional and two local cable news channels and holds ownership interests in two others. Belo’s daily newspapers are The Dallas Morning News, The Providence Journal, The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA) and the Denton Record-Chronicle (Denton, TX). Belo operates more than 30 Web sites, participates in several interactive alliances and offers a broad range of Internet-based products.

BRITISH AIRWAYS: Fined $270M; To Faces Lawsuits, Reports Say------------------------------------------------------------ The decisions by competition regulators in the U.S. and U.K. to fine British Airways for colluding to fix surcharges on tickets are expected to spark class actions against the company, reports say.

The Office of Fair Trading in Europe delivered a GBP121.5 million fine against British Airways, while the U.S. Department of Justice recommended a $300 million (GBP148 million) fine against it on Aug. 1.

The company admitted contacting Virgin Atlantic about raising fuel surcharges on long-haul flights five times between 2004 and 2006.

Virgin escaped fines for informing the OFT about the collusion, but it is not immune from a possible class action, according to The Lawyer.com.

As many as 20 million passengers could file claims of up to GBP165 per return flight against the company, lawyers said, according to The Scotsman. The U.S. law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll has The Scotsman it planned to launch proceedings against the airlines. It has a London office, which will co-ordinate U.K. clients.

CALIFORNIA: Judge Wanger Certifies Lawsuit Against Fresno City-------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed against the city of Fresno over the confiscation and destruction of homeless people’s personal property when authorities tore down makeshift settlements in 2006, the Fresno Bee reports.

Details of the order are still to be formalized in writing, but in an oral ruling, Judge Wanger said the class would cover "all persons in the city of Fresno who were or are homeless, without residence, after Oct. 17, 2003, and whose personal belongings have been unlawfully taken in a sweep, raid or cleanup by any of the defendants."

The suit, "Kincaid, et al. v. city of Fresno, et al.," was filed on behalf six homeless Fresno residents who claim that their civil rights were violated.

It seeks a permanent ban on the removal of personal belongings during similar city actions, a judgment that the practice violates state and federal constitutional provisions and unspecified monetary damages for destruction of property. Plaintiffs want to turn the suit into a class action.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is one of two organizations that filed the suit on Oct. 17, 2006. The other is the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.

According to the suit, "for more than a year, defendants have engaged in an ongoing and continuing policy and practice of raids on those Fresno residents who are unsheltered, in which they take and destroy the personal property of these individuals."

The suit claims that the city violated the homeless residents' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, their 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law, and similar violations of the state constitution.

Attorneys for the homeless said that property was seized without giving those residents a chance to reclaim it and the city rarely gave notice that it was coming.

In October, Judge Wanger issued a temporary order requiring Fresno to keep personal belongings so homeless residents can reclaim them when homeless settlements are torn down.

The suit is "Kincaid, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01445-OWW-SMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under Judge Oliver W. Wanger with referral to Judge Sandra M. Snyder.

CINTAS CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Litigation in California-------------------------------------------------------------Cintas Corp. continues to face a purported class action, "Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corp.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers exempt employees.

On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging additional state law wage and hour claims under the following state laws: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15 states listed above only with respect to the putative class members that may litigate their claims in court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 30, 3007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007.

The suit is "Veliz et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv-1180-SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with referral to Judge Maria-Elena James.

CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race, Gender Discrimination Lawsuits-------------------------------------------------------------Cintas Corp. remains a defendant in purported class actions alleging either both racial and sex discrimination in promoting employees, according to the company’s July 30, 3007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007.

Ramirez Litigation

The suit “Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corp.,” was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California on Jan. 20, 2004.

It is alleging class action claims of race, national origin and gender discrimination in hiring, promotion and pay. On April 27, 2005, the EEOC intervened in “Ramirez.”

Serrano Litigation

The suit “Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp.,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on May 10, 2004.”

It is alleging class action claims of gender discrimination in hiring into service sales representative positions (SSR). On Nov. 15, 2005, the EEOC intervened in “Serrano.”

On May 11, 2006, some of the Ramirez claims were transferred to the Serrano case, while the remaining claims were dismissed or compelled to arbitration.

Colleen Litigation

The suit, “Colleen Grindle, et al. v. Cintas Corp.,” was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Wood County, Ohio on Feb. 20, 2007.

It is alleging class action claims on behalf of female employees at Cintas’ Perrysburg, Ohio rental location who allegedly were denied hire, promotion or transfer into SSR positions.

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized products and services to businesses of all types throughout the U.S. and Canada. The products and services provided by Cintas include uniforms and apparel; mats, mops and towels; restroom and hygiene service; first aid and safety; fire protection; branded promotional products; document shredding and storage; cleanroom resources, and flame resistant clothing. Cintas classifies its business into two operating segments: Rentals and Other Services.

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Face "Rix" Litigation in Ill.------------------------------------------------------------Community Health Systems, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries remain defendants in the purported class action, "Sheri Rix v.Heartland Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems,Inc.," which was filed in the Circuit Court of Williamson County, Illinois.

This class action, served against the company on March 3, 2005, was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as the representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Heartland Regional Medical Center.

Plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the company uses unconscionable methods to collect bills.

Plaintiff seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of overpayment, and for unjust enrichment. It also seeks compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.

The Circuit Court Judge recently granted company's motion to dismiss this case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her case. The parties are briefing their positions.

The company reported no development in the matter in its July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities.

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery Begins for “Chronister” Litigation--------------------------------------------------------------Discovery has commenced in the purported class action, "Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/aGateway Regional Medical Center," which was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois and names Community Health Systems, Inc. as a defendant.

The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8,2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to uninsured patients.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company’s motion to dismiss has been granted in part and denied in part and discovery has commenced, according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Community Health Systems, Inc., -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities.

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Hears Suit by Uninsured Patients in Ala.----------------------------------------------------------------A June 13 hearing has occurred in a purported class action filed against Community Health Systems, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, Eufaula Division.

The suit was filed by Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols against Eufaula Community Hospital, Community Health Systems, Inc., South Baldwin Regional Medical Center and Community Health Systems Professional Services Corp.

The class action, previously, captioned, "Arleana Lawrence and Robert Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community Health Systems, Inc.," was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and as the representatives of similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals.

Plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the company use unconscionable methods to collect bills.

They seek restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and injunctive relief.

In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management company subsidiary as a defendant.

In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, our hospital in Foley, Alabama, South Baldwin Regional Medical Center.

Discovery has been concluded on the class determination issues and a hearing was held on June 13, 2007, according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities.

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Pa. Uninsured's Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Community Health Systems, Inc. and its management company subsidiary reached a settlement in a class action filed against them in the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

The class action, "James Monroe v. Pottstown Memorial Hospital and Community Health Systems, Inc.," was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and as the representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Pottstown Memorial Hospital or any of its other Pennsylvania hospitals.

This case has been settled, according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities.

JANUS CAPITAL: High Court Rules Favorably in IPO Antitrust Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Supreme Court reversed an earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that remanded for further proceedings a purported class action that names a subsidiary of Janus Capital Group, Inc.

In 2001, a Janus subsidiary was named as a defendant in a class action, “Pfeiffer v. Credit Suisse First Boston, Case No. 01-CV-2014,” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that certain underwriting firms and institutional investors violated antitrust laws in connection with initial public offerings. The U.S. District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s antitrust claims in November 2003.

In September 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the U.S. District Court’s decision to dismiss the claims and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In March 2006, the defendants, including the Janus subsidiary, filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the U.S. Court of Appeal’s decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and heard arguments on the matter in March 2007.

In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, including the Janus subsidiary, holding that “the securities law implicitly precludes the application of the antitrust laws to the conduct alleged in this case,” according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

Janus Capital Group Inc. -- http://ir.janus.com/-- is a provider of investment advisory services. Janus provides investment advisory services through its primary subsidiaries, Janus Capital Management LLC (JCM) and Enhanced Investment Technologies, LLC (INTECH). The Company derives substantially all of its revenue and net income from its Investment Management segment, which provides investment management and administrative services to mutual funds, separate accounts and institutional clients in both domestic and international markets. The Company also owns a printing and fulfillment business (the Printing and Fulfillment segment). On Feb. 1, 2006, Janus increased its ownership of INTECH to approximately 82.5% with the purchase of an additional 5% interest.

LAKESIDE FOODS: Recalls Green Beans on Possible Contamination-------------------------------------------------------------Lakeside Foods, Inc. of Manitowoc, Wisconsin is initiating a voluntary recall of 15,000 cases of 14.5-ounce French Style Green Beans because some cans may have been under processed and some cans may have leaked.

While no illnesses have been reported these cans have the potential to be contaminated with harmful organisms including Clostridium botulinum. No botulinum toxin has been found in any cans tested to date, however the company continues to test out of an abundance of caution.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distention and constipation may also be common symptoms.

People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. Consumers also are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Lakeside is asking consumers who have cans of the French Style Green Beans with the following in the top line of the can code to return them unopened to the place of purchase. EAA5247, EAA5257, EAA5267, EAA5277, EAB5247, EAB5257, ECA5207, ECA5217, ECA5227, ECA5297, ECB5207, ECB5217, ECB5227 and ECB5307.

Lakeside Foods voluntarily recalled the products after learning of a potential problem during routine internal monitoring. Lakeside said it is working closely with the Food & Drug Administration and has identified and corrected the condition that resulted in its decision to voluntarily recall the cans in question. No other Lakeside products are affected by this recall.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-466-3834 Ext 4090. Code and label information will also be posted on their web site: http://www.lakesidefoods.com.

MCKESSON CORP: Mass. Court Mulls Class Status for AWP Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to rule on a motion seeking to certify a class in the lawsuit, “New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corp.”

The suit alleges that starting in late 2001 and early 2002 and continuing to the present day, defendants have effectuated increases in the "Average Wholesale Price" (AWP) of certain branded drugs, which alleged conduct resulted in higher drug reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

The complaint purports to state claims based on the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, violations of the California Business and Professions Code and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for negligent misrepresentation.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs and co-defendant First DataBank announced a proposed settlement, as to First DataBank only, which calls for downward adjustments to certain First DataBank published AWPs, a prohibition against all future changes to such AWPs and a prescribed timetable for the cessation of all publication of AWPs by First DataBank.

In November 2006, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, although with certain restrictions as to the type of class that could be utilized to effect the settlement.

The court has not yet approved a form of class notice, set a schedule for objections to the settlement or set a date for hearing on final approval.

The court heard argument on plaintiffs’ petition for class certification, but the court has not yet ruled on that petition, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.

MCKESSON CORP: Mo. Court Gives Final OK to “Dutton” Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri gave final approval to a proposed settlement in the purported class action, “Gary Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc. et al., Case No. 4-04-CV-00147-SNL,” which was filed against a subsidiary of McKesson Corp.

On Feb. 5, 2004, a class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against McKesson Corp.’s after-acquired subsidiary, D&K Health Care Resources, Inc. and D&K’s former Chief Executive, Operating and Financial Officers, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The Commercial Workers Union, Local 655, AFL-CIO, Food Employees Joint Pension Plan (Lead Plaintiff) in that action sought to represent a class consisting of purchasers of D&K’s publicly traded common stock during the period from Aug. 10, 2000 to Sept. 16, 2002 and sought compensatory damages, costs, fees and expenses of suit.

The action generally alleges that D&K failed to timely disclose that its sales of branded drugs during most of the class period were heavily dependent on its ability to purchase drugs from vendor Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. at discounted prices and in volume, and that defendants knew, but did not disclose, that the effect of losing its attractive purchase terms from Bristol-Myers would be a material reduction in sales volume and profit.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the McKesson Corp. entered into a settlement agreement, which resolves all claims by the D&K shareholders against all defendants.

McKesson Corp. is obligated under the terms of the agreement to pay $19 million, but anticipate recouping $5 million of that amount from D&K’s insurer.

The settlement has received the preliminary approval of the trial court.

On June 5, 2007, the trial court granted final approval of the previously described settlement, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-00147-SNL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh.

NOBU CORP: Waiters Lodge N.Y. Lawsuit Over Unfair Wage Practices----------------------------------------------------------------Waiters at Nobu Corp.'s downtown Manhattan businesses -- Nobu and Nobu Next Door, and its midtown location, Nobu 57 -- filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming unfair wage practices at the restaurant, the AP WorldStream reports.

The complaint claims the upscale Nobu restaurants -- partially owned by actor Robert De Niro -- cheated more than 100 workers by taking part of their tips. Named plaintiffs Alisa Agofonova and Aaron Pou allege they were forced to share tips with restaurant management.

The lawsuit also alleges the restaurants failed to pay employees overtime.

The waiters asked that their lawsuit be designated as a class action so current and past employees could benefit from litigating common issues without putting their jobs or reputations at risk, the report said.

Nobu lawyer Carolyn D. Richmond said the restaurants will vigorously defend the litigation.

"We firmly believe that the restaurant has been in full compliance with all state and federal wage and hour laws and that our position will be vindicated in the court system," she said.

The suit is “Agofonova et al. v. Nobu Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06926-DAB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts.

OHIO CASUALTY: Settles Insurance-Related Litigation in Arkansas---------------------------------------------------------------Ohio Casualty Corp. reached a settlement in the class-action complaint filed by Dusty Easley, et al. in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas in March 2007 against:

The Easley proceeding alleged that the defendants, involving approximately 400 different entities, improperly reduced uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage payments to persons insured under private passenger automobile insurance policies by consulting a computer software program in determining the amount of damages payable to the insured for bodily injury claims.

Plaintiffs and Defendants in the Easley proceeding have filed a Stipulation of Settlement and Motion for Preliminary Approval seeking approval of a settlement of the case, according to the company’s July 30, 3007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Ohio Casualty Corp. -- http://www.ocas.com-- operates as the holding company of The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. is one of the of six property-casualty insurance companies that form the Ohio Casualty Group (the Group), whose primary products consist of insurance for personal auto, homeowners, commercial property, commercial auto, workers’ compensation and other miscellaneous lines.

In addition to The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., the Group consists of West American Insurance Company (West American), Ohio Security Insurance Co. (Ohio Security), American Fire and Casualty Co. (American Fire), Avomark Insurance Co. (Avomark) and Ohio Casualty of New Jersey, Inc. (OCNJ). The Group operates in three business segments: Commercial Lines, Specialty Lines and Personal Lines.

PEACHTREE RIDGE: Laid-off Employees Sue to Claim Unpaid Wages-------------------------------------------------------------Peachtree Ridge Mining Company Inc. and its sole officer Donn A. Chickering are facing a class action filed on behalf of the miners who were laid off on July 6 from the company’s underground coal mine near Bolt, Michelle James of Beckley Register-Herald reports.

The mine was closed at the order of state mining officials, resulting to the loss of jobs of approximately 100 people. These employees have yet to receive their last two paychecks.

Because of the pay schedule, Peachtree employees are due two paychecks, according to plaintiffs’ attorney Greg Hewitt. He said the complaint seeks compensation for accrued but unused vacation or holiday time.

PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of $23M Antitrust Suit Deal-----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has yet to approve a $23 million settlement reached by PPGIndustries, Inc. in a suit alleging it violated antitrust rules in its operation in the U.S. automotive refinish industry, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the automotive refinish industry have been filed in various state and federal jurisdictions.

The approximately 55 federal cases have been consolidated as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish case have settled. The automotive refinish cases in state courts have either been stayed pending resolution of the federal proceedings or have been dismissed.

Neither PPG's investigation conducted through its counsel of the allegations in these cases nor the discovery conducted in the case has identified a basis for the plaintiffs' allegations thatPPG participated in a price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S. automotive refinish industry.

PPG's management continues to believe that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the company and that it has meritorious defenses in the federal automotive refinish case.

Nonetheless, it remained uncertain whether the federal court ultimately would dismiss PPG, or whether the case would go to trial.

On Sept. 14, 2006, PPG agreed to settle the federal class action for $23 million to avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with complex litigation involving jury trials.

PPG recorded a charge for $23 million in the third quarter of 2006. Although a formal settlement agreement has been executed and the $23 million was paid into escrow on Jan. 3, 2007, necessary court proceedings will follow before the settlement is final and non-appealable.

The suit is "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1426," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Richard Barclay Surrick.

PPG INDUSTRIES: Antitrust Suit Deal Fairness Hearing Cancelled --------------------------------------------------------------A hearing on the final approval of the settlement of antitrust claims filed against PPG Industries, Inc. by indirect purchasers of flat glass in California has been cancelled.

On Nov. 8, 2006, PPG entered into a class-wide settlement agreement to resolve all antitrust claims of indirect purchasers of flat glass in California.

PPG agreed to make a payment of $2.5 million, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs.

On Jan. 30, 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court has also approved the form of notice to the settlement class.

Initially scheduled for July 10, 2007, the hearing was cancelled and has not been rescheduled, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

PPG INDUSTRIES: Automotive Refinish Suit Deal Hearing Set Oct.---------------------------------------------------------------An Oct. 4, 2007 hearing is set for a proposed settlement of a California antitrust suit that names PPG Industries, Inc. as a defendant.

There are class actions in five states alleging that the company violated antitrust rules in its operation in the U.S. automotive refinish industry.

Theses suit were filed pursuant to state statutes on behalf of indirect purchasers of automotive refinish products. The plaintiffs in these cases have not yet specified an amount of alleged damages.

The cases are in state courts in California, Maine, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Vermont. A similar suit brought in a federal court in New York City was dismissed on May 8, 2007.

PPG believes that there was no wrongdoing on its part, and believes it has meritorious defenses to the independent state court cases.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, PPG agreed to settle the California state court cases and it is considering potential settlement of the remaining state court cases.

Necessary court proceedings will follow before the settlement of the California state court cases becomes final and non-appealable. The hearing date for court approval is scheduled for Oct. 4, 2007, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

TD AMERITRADE: N.Y. Suit Claims “Money Market Accounts” Fraud--------------------------------------------------------------TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing it of defrauding investors of millions of dollars, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges the company deceptively sweeps their so-called “money market accounts” into Ameritrade savings accounts, yielding interest of 0% to 0.1% instead of the promised 4% to 5%.

Named plaintiff Joseph Welch claims Ameritrade did it to “profit from lending and investing TD Ameritrade’s clients’ cash for their own profit at commercial lending rates ranging from 8% to in excess of 10%.”

He claims the “sham ‘money market’ and ‘TD Ameritrade Cash’ accounts” were part of a “deceptive cash sweep scheme” that accounted for more 21% of Ameritrade’s net income in 2006, gleaning “$185 million in fees from a partner (TD Bank), who reinvested their clients’ cash at higher rates.”

AMERICAN HOME: Bernard M. Gross Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges American Home (AHM) and Michael Strauss, Chief Executive Officer with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market during the Class Period that misrepresented and failed to disclose that:

(i) AHM's credit related expenses were increasing dramatically by reason of its three month "timely repayment" warranty granted by AHM to buyers who purchased stated income loans with high loan to value ratios;

(ii) AHM was experiencing an increasing level of delinquencies on loans which were subject to AHM's "timely repayment" warranty which were depressing its earnings and threatening its historical level of dividends;

(iii) AHM was experiencing increasing difficulties in selling its loans and was required to decrease prices, reducing margins and profits;

(iv) AHM was overstating its financial results by failing to adequately reserve for "timely repayment" warranties loans and by failing to adequately write-down the value of certain of the loans in its portfolio as these loans declined substantially in value; and

(v) AHM's sources of cash were drying up and it was required to provide additional cash under its warehouse lines of credit as the value of the loans which collateralized those borrowings fell dramatically.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the securities of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 29, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

AMERICAN HOME: Kirby McInerney Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit------------------------------------------------------------Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. between April 26, 2006 and July 30, 2007, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that American Home Mortgage and certain of its officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was operating without adequate reserves for delinquent loan repurchases or an adequate strategic plan in relation to the volatility of certain of American Home Mortgage's loan products.

As a result of defendants' failure to fully disclose that the Company was operating without adequate reserves in relation to the Company's prior sales of certain of American Home Mortgage's loan products or an adequate strategic plan for the repurchase of delinquent previously sold loans, defendants materially misrepresented to investors the true facts concerning American Home Mortgage's financial performance and prospects.

Then, on June 28, 2007, American Home Mortgage issued a press release announcing that it will take "substantial charges for credit-related expenses in the second quarter." The Company reported that the increase in losses was related to its practice of extending a three month timely payment warranty that the Company granted to loan buyers who purchased stated income loans. In response to this announcement, the price of American Home Mortgage stock declined from $20.91 per share to $18.38 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

Then, on July 27, 2007, after the close of the market, American Home Mortgage issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors had determined to delay paying its dividend. In response to this announcement, on July 30, 2007, the NYSE halted trading in American Home Mortgage stock before the market opened.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

AMERICAN HOME: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit in N.Y.------------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm filed a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., Inc. common stock during the period between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007.

The lawsuit charges AHM and certain of its officers with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In particular, the complaint asserts that, during the Class Period, defendants materially misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing increasing loan delinquencies and increasing difficulties in selling its loans. Thus, the Complaint alleges that the Company had overstated its statements of earnings and margins.

When the market learned of this adverse information through the Company's June 28, 2007 and July 27, 2007 announcements AHM's stock price dropped more than 85%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

AMERICAN HOME: Seeger Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Seeger Weiss LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of American Home Mortgage Investment Corporation common stock in the open market between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint seeks remedies for the class under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges that defendants AHM, Michael Strauss and Stephen A. Hozie, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants disseminated or approved the materially false and misleading statements which they knew or deliberately disregarded were misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

On June 28, 2007, American Home Mortgage issued a press release announcing that it will take "substantial charges for credit-related expenses in the second quarter." The Company reported that the increase in losses was related to its practice of extending a three month timely payment warranty that the Company granted to loan buyers who purchased stated income loans.

In response to this announcement, the price of American Home Mortgage stock declined from $20.91 per share to $18.38 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

Then, on July 27, 2007, after the close of the market, American Home Mortgage issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors had determined to delay paying its dividend. In response to this announcement, on July 30, 2007, the NYSE halted trading in American Home Mortgage stock before the market opened.

After the stock reopened for trading, it traded down even further, closing at less than $1.50 per share on July 31 and August 1, 2007.

AHM is a real estate investment trust (REIT), which engages in the investment and origination of residential mortgage loans in the United States. The Company primarily originates and sells securitized adjustable-rate mortgage loans, as well as engages in the sale of mortgage loans to institutional investors and servicing mortgage loans owned by others.

HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of Health Management Associates, Inc. between January 17, 2007 and July 30, 2007 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Health Management securities.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate Health Management's policies in order to create the impression that the Company had its "bad debt expenses" under control in order to borrow additional money, and to get the Board to approve of their recapitalization plan. On January 17, 2007, Health Management announced a major recapitalization which was completed in March 2007 and which required the company to borrow $3.25 billion of new debt to refinance existing debt and pay shareholders a special one-time cash dividend of $10.00.

The Individual Defendants benefited substantially from this one time dividend, given that they were major shareholders and each defendant received large sums of money.

As revealed on July 31, 2007, Health Management, throughout the Class Period, was experiencing a deterioration in the collectibility of its accounts receivable from uninsured patients. Health Management announced that for its second quarter of 2007 it took a $39.0 million charge, and recorded it as an additional reserve to reflect a decline in collectibility of accounts receivable from uninsured patients.

Moreover, the Company updated its fiscal 2007 diluted EPS from continuing operations objective range to be between $0.45 and $0.50 to reflect increased uninsured volumes, a deterioration in the collectibility of accounts receivable related to those uninsured volumes, and lower than anticipated overall paying volumes.

On this unexpected news the price of Health Management stock dropped almost 25% to close at $8.06 on July 31, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Health Management securities during the Class Period, which is from January 17, 2007 and July 30, 2007.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.